Let us talk, you and I, about Blizzard

[cicaba]

The sole purpose of a company is to make profits and appease their share holders. This does not alter if they are a gaming company. Blizzard are not different to other companies in regards to this philosophy, only in that they are more successful.

Saying "Blizzard, as with all other gaming companies producing samey games to make money rather than unique ones to make money, should somehow be allowed some kind of clearance from the capitalist world in which we live and instead make more unique games with just as much polish." would be something you could say.

And yeah, I'm a videogames consumer, so I'd like to live in a world where that were true also

 

[Inkidu]

STUFF!

No 3D gaming? I don't think that would be a huge loss. Gives me a headache. Other people can enjoy it all they want as long as they still keep making games I can play on my nice 2D monitor.

As for your other points, Blizzard is a company. A hugely, hugely successful company. They don't answer to you unless you're a shareholder and - going out on a limb here - I'm going to assume you don't own any shares. So...

All you can do is vote with your wallet. Don't buy their games. Me, I'll keep playing WoW (along with other MMOs ranging from Dungeons & Dragons Online to Fallen Earth), Starcraft 2 which is hugely and amazingly fun, and waiting for Diablo 3 to come out along with millions of other people.

Somehow, I think Blizzard will survive your wrath.

I don't have wrath. I had my opinion which because I'm suddenly on the unpopular side of things is invalid. I probably shouldn't have shared it but this is kind of what this website is for, isn't it?

I used a really edgy attention getter. Okay my bad. I don't actually want anyone to go out of business. However, do you really think any Blizzard employee can't find work at another studio or whatever?

 

[ex951753]

You seem to be lumping those "innovative" games together as if they were all developed by the same company. Come back once you can find a company that produces a "innovative" game once every couple years. Seriously, EVERY single company does this. You said individual developers have more "guts" than blizz? Remember Penumbra followed by Amnesia? How long, if ever, would it take for Mojang to create a completely different game than Minecraft? They have to right? Since they already made millions of dollars they OWE us a completely different game or else they are killing the industry. This whole thread just boils down to plain blizzard bashing, without anything to back it up.

 

[Squidden]

Blizzard is possibly the worst thing for the video Even if that leaves them with ten million dollars a year couldn't they push that into some kind of branch or independent label, a studio, something? So, yes they are the worse thing for the modern movements in gaming. EA at least has some small studios that occasionally produce something new and good. .

Blizzard has branches working for Starcraft 2, starcraft, diablo 3, and World of Warcraft with all of it's expansions and hotfixes.

They put a ton of work into what they do.

 

[B4DD]

I know I'm a little late and I haven't read any responses up to this point, I'm replying to the op's original post. The fact that they "only" have 3 ip's and have been using them for so long is because as a beginning development studio, they went right ahead and created 3 ip's. No one else has ever done that and been completely successful with every one. Besides the fact that most studios don't make it into their 3rd ip before going under or merging with someone bigger or coming under new management. Blizzard would still be largely successful had it never created Warcraft. It's not that WoW is taking over PC gaming and causing everyone else to switch to consoles, it's that no one is combating WoW correctly, everyone sees it as $$$ and decides to make their own knock off. MB's video on the subject of PC gaming is kind of defeatist, there is still a thriving community of people that play games other than WoW on the PC just on Steam alone, but it is hard to see the forest through the World of Warcraft.

Sorry my argument meanders a lot, just trying to cover all my bases.

 

[Inkidu]

The sole purpose of a company is to make profits and appease their share holders. This does not alter if they are a gaming company. Blizzard are not different to other companies in regards to this philosophy, only in that they are more successful.

Saying "Blizzard, as with all other gaming companies producing samey games to make money rather than unique ones to make money, should somehow be allowed some kind of clearance from the capitalist world in which we live and instead make more unique games with just as much polish." would be something you could say.

And yeah, I'm a videogames consumer, so I'd like to live in a world where that were true also

I'm saying they have the money to take the occasional risk. One bad game for Blizzard isn't going to turn the whole fanbase against them. For the love of of power mushroom the fans waited thirteen years for a sequel. I don't think I'm suggesting too much.

 

[Icehearted]

Blizzard is possibly the worst thing for the video game industry today

I sort of glazed over at abut that point. No offense, but Blizzard isn't nearly large enough to be "the worst thing for the video game industry" by any stretch. I gather, from skimming what I'm sure was a concise post that it's their methods of game development and distribution that have drawn your ire?

I'll keep it really simple here:
Microsoft was the first major player to implement a pay to play service for consoles. Among the popular systems, they are also the only ones to this day to use a pay to play system. PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, Dreamcast, Nintendo DS (all versions), Wii, and PSP have free online play unless it's an MMO or some kind of thinly veiled pilfering.

Microsoft popularized micro-transactions, enforcing a strict (no free DLC) rule that went as so far that Epic and 2K Games were forced to charge what they wanted to release for free.**

Though Xbox Live charges, their service offers no genuine advantages over the competition, not even dedicated servers.

Microsoft want to turn away from the core audience that made them successful and embrace the fickle casual audience, openly stating this.

GFWL

My friend, there is a laundry list of things I could go on about, from deliberately cutting corners on system manufacturing to sell shoddy consoles, to their unnecessary and probably technically illegal MS Points program (invented to both disguise pricing ad at one time deliberately create a balance that could only be rectified by abandoning unused points or buying more when the things sold at intervals of 500 rather than 400).

A bad dev/pub is one thing, but a monopolistic empire is an entirely bigger fish worth frying.


**Edit: Thus DLC and withheld content (or on disc unlocked DLC) were born.

 

[Rayansaki]

First off, Blizzard did come up with the 3 IP's, there's no licensing or adaptation involved. How many developers actually have made 3 successful original IP's? You are talking as if other devs push new ips every month, but what you see generally is a Dev with 1 good IP, sometimes 2, and a few crappy ones. Blizzard has made 3 great ones (and is working on the 4th that YOU KNOW IS GOOD, because it's from Blizzard).

Secondly, what's bad with sticking with what you are good at? Blizzard makes excellent RTS', and excellent RPG's. Again, what do other developers make? Epic makes Shooters, Bioware makes RPGs or RPG based Shooters', Valve makes Shooters (Someone will mention Dota2, but that's not their original IP, and Portal is still technically a shooter, just like WoW is technically an RPG). So, when you look at it, Blizzard actually has more variety in genres than most big devs.

Also, why is Blizzard not embracing consoles a bad thing? It's not a step backwards to stick to a single platform. Nowadays everyone complains about consolization of games. Have you looked at the scale of a Blizzard game compared to a multiplatform game? The difference is massive. I'm not saying console games are bad, I'm just saying that platform specific games are bigger and better. This includes a console's exclusive game as well. Little Big Planet is on the same scale as most Blizzard games (excluding WoW), but it wouldn't be possible if it wasn't a PS3 exclusive.

Lastly, I like how you finish off by comparing Blizzard to EA. One is a developer, the other is a publisher with several developers working for them. If you want to compare with EA, you use Activision, which Blizzard is part of. If you want to compare something with Blizzard, compare a single developer from EA instead, and you will see how good Blizzard is.

 

[Gabbit]

if you have an issue with blizzard being unoriginal just look at most game companies. what about Cod fucking 19 coming out some time in the future. Blizzard has flagship IP that they focus on to develop rich story. Innovation isn't the only reason a games company can exist, at least blizzard release games that improve upon a IP rather then just stagnating the shallow pool of triple A titles with a seasonal release of generic shooter 5 or whatever.

If you are going to attack a developer for lacking innovation there is many much more guilty parties in game development then Blizzard.

Anti fanboys are as bad as fanboys

 

[Inkidu]

You seem to be lumping those "innovative" games together as if they were all developed by the same company. Come back once you can find a company that produces a "innovative" game once every couple years. Seriously, EVERY single company does this. You said individual developers have more "guts" than blizz? Remember Penumbra followed by Amnesia? How long, if ever, would it take for Mojang to create a completely different game than Minecraft? They have to right? Since they already made millions of dollars they OWE us a completely different game or else they are killing the industry. This whole thread just boils down to plain blizzard bashing, without anything to back it up.

I'm not saying they have to paint the Sistine Chapel with a toothbrush, and it's impossible for a team to totally break away from what they've done in the past, however. With the nature of MMORPGs they're all very samey to me. Blizzard's new one might be, but I sincerely doubt it. Maybe I'm being a cynic, but if Blizzard did something, something that wasn't StarCraft, WarCraft, or Diablo. That would be a step in a fresh direction. Like I said maybe Titan is it, maybe not.

 

[Inkidu]

if you have an issue with blizzard being unoriginal just look at most game companies. what about Cod fucking 19 coming out some time in the future. Blizzard has flagship IP that they focus on to develop rich story. Innovation isn't the only reason a games company can exist, at least blizzard release games that improve upon a IP rather then just stagnating the shallow pool of triple A titles with a seasonal release of generic shooter 5 or whatever.

If you are going to attack a developer for lacking innovation there is many much more guilty parties in game development then Blizzard.

Anti fanboys are as bad as fanboys

This is a matter of personal taste, but when I think story, Blizzard is the last place I look. Different issue though.

 

[ThorUK]

As much as I dislike WoW, and it's demon-spawn (ie "wow-clones"), it, Starcraft and Diablo I & II are without a doubt a part of video game history. Furthermore, using an existing intellectual property to bring in fans of the previous games is in no way bad providing you're adding a proportionate amount of gameplay without upsetting the themes and feel of the previous games. Blizzard are one of the few companies out there right now who are actually capable and prepared to do that. Even Bethesda, whom I respect for their technical achievements, stooped to the morally reprehensible approach of purchaseable DLCs.

I liked Diablo I, and II, and the (single) expansion to II! Am i going to buy no. 3? Almost certainly, am I going to get my money's worth? Again, almost certainly! As far as I'm concerned, Blizzard are key example of how to run a game development company both profitably and ethically.

 

[Inkidu]

As much as I dislike WoW, and it's demon-spawn (ie "wow-clones"), it, Starcraft and Diablo I & II are without a doubt a part of video game history. Furthermore, using an existing intellectual property to bring in fans of the previous games is in no way bad providing you're adding a proportionate amount of gameplay without upsetting the themes and feel of the previous games. Blizzard are one of the few companies out there right now who are actually capable and prepared to do that. Even Bethesda, whom I respect for their technical achievements, stooped to the morally reprehensible approach of purchaseable DLCs.

I liked Diablo I, and II, and the (single) expansion to II! Am i going to buy no. 3? Almost certainly, am I going to get my money's worth? Again, almost certainly! As far as I'm concerned, Blizzard are key example of how to run a game development company both profitably and ethically.

Unless you post a disagreement on their forum. Then they ban you. Business ethics is one of the great oxymora of the English language. That is the cynic speaking.

 

[ThorUK]

blah blah... pro-Blizzard

Unless you post a disagreement on their forum. Then they ban you. Business ethics is one of the great oxymora of the English language. That is the cynic speaking.

Ironically I can't post on their forums since I've not bought any of their games since diablo II Lord of Destruction. However, given my experience in LoD, they are quite willing to accomidate the playerbase responses and feedback.

 

[Scout Tactical]

Haha oh wow.jpg

This thread is impressively dumb. Now, I'll be the first to say I haven't liked hardly anything Blizzard has done since it merged with Activision, but the accusations of this thread are just silly. Blizzard is essentially a studio of Activision, who wouldn't let it deviate if it could (Bobby Kotick literally told the design team they have to focus on multimillion dollar IPs). Even then, he's ignoring the fact that Blizzard is constantly putting out content updates for WoW. These updates are on par in hour-consumption with expansion packs for other games, if not moreso in the case of dungeons.

It's funny how the OP conveniently forgets (or just doesn't know) the important part of art history. Before the truly great artists ever experimented (Picasso is a huge example of this), they always perfected realism. You have to make sure you're the best at what you do before you experiment.

Even then... why should Blizzard be the one to innovate? Why not Bethesda (two IPs), Irrational (one IP), GameFreak (one IP), Bungie (one IP), Rocksteady (one IP), Neversoft (two IPs), MediaMolecule (one IP), Zynga (2 IPs), Cryptic (2 IPs), Naughty Dog (one IP), Treyarch (two IPs), Insomniac (two IPs), or Relic (two IPs)? Why are these games not "the worst thing for the video game industry today"? By your definition, they are. In fact, most of the March Mayhem board is ruining your perfect bubble of games.

Of course, by your definition, we should be worshiping SquareEnix and PopCap for mass producing games. Similarly, shovelware companies are the peak of cutting-edge innovation in gaming today, since they constantly release new, unrelated titles that run on different engines. After all, where would we be without Homie Rollerz?

In conclusion... I think you're missing the point of a large industry. Each company is free to perfect its art, while others perfect other things. Would you really be satisfied if Blizzard released a new shooter, but it was half-assed (as with your Mona Lisa example)? I doubt it. However, much like the Mona Lisa, finished or not, people would flock to it because they know that Blizzard has a reputation for quality products. And like the Mona Lisa, they would probably be disappointed to find a harsh reality: just some pretty graphics and nothing more.

 

[Wayneguard]

Some people say, "I wish every company was like Blizzard. They refine their games, releasing only when ready so that it is perfect." Well, champ, I'm going to present to you the other edge of that sword. Refining is all well and good, but honestly if every game was like Blizzard I sincerely doubt we'd have 3-D gaming, I doubt we would have 2.5-D gaming either.

The irony here is that 3-d has severely limited both diablo 3 and starcraft 2. Neither of those games have any gameplay aspects that require 3-d and had blizzard opted for a 2-d, pre-rendered gameworld, they would look much, much prettier (and closer to their originals to boot).

Okay I would hate for this to go on: Not 3D glasses wearing 3D. 3D rendered worlds which are still technically 2D. Really, I thought that was clear because of the 2.5-D in the next sentence. I don't like the "3D" thing everyone's getting on these days either. I think it's just a gimmick from the 50s making it's cyclical round in fashion.

Sigh... thus is the benefit of close reading... If you notice how I said 2-d pre-rendered as in

Spoiler: this

vs.

Spoiler: this

I was not even remotely talking about true 3-d.

 

[Inkidu]

Haha oh wow.jpg

This thread is impressively dumb. Now, I'll be the first to say I haven't liked hardly anything Blizzard has done since it merged with Activision, but the accusations of this thread are just silly. Blizzard is essentially a studio of Activision, who wouldn't let it deviate if it could (Bobby Kotick literally told the design team they have to focus on multimillion dollar IPs). Even then, he's ignoring the fact that Blizzard is constantly putting out content updates for WoW. These updates are on par in hour-consumption with expansion packs for other games, if not moreso in the case of dungeons.

It's funny how the OP conveniently forgets (or just doesn't know) the important part of art history. Before the truly great artists ever experimented (Picasso is a huge example of this), they always perfected realism. You have to make sure you're the best at what you do before you experiment.

Even then... why should Blizzard be the one to innovate? Why not Bethesda (two IPs), Irrational (one IP), GameFreak (one IP), Bungie (one IP), Rocksteady (one IP), Neversoft (two IPs), MediaMolecule (one IP), Zynga (2 IPs), Cryptic (2 IPs), Naughty Dog (one IP), Treyarch (two IPs), Insomniac (two IPs), or Relic (two IPs)? Why are these games not "the worst thing for the video game industry today"? By your definition, they are. In fact, most of the March Mayhem board is ruining your perfect bubble of games.

Of course, by your definition, we should be worshiping SquareEnix and PopCap for mass producing games. Similarly, shovelware companies are the peak of cutting-edge innovation in gaming today, since they constantly release new, unrelated titles that run on different engines. After all, where would we be without Homie Rollerz?

In conclusion... I think you're missing the point of a large industry. Each company is free to perfect its art, while others perfect other things. Would you really be satisfied if Blizzard released a new shooter, but it was half-assed (as with your Mona Lisa example)? I doubt it. However, much like the Mona Lisa, finished or not, people would flock to it because they know that Blizzard has a reputation for quality products. And like the Mona Lisa, they would probably be disappointed to find a harsh reality: just some pretty graphics and nothing more.

I've explained why I think Blizzard should be the one to innovate. They have the stability. My art metaphor goes well beyond just pretty graphics, and you missed the point of the Mona Lisa example. I never said we should worship SquareEnix, they're part of the problem too, but I don't know about you I'd rather see something new and innovative from Blizzard.

I've had enough mob-mentality beating for one day.

 

[Jodah]

So let me get this straight. You have a problem because they *only* have three of the most popular game series' of all time. You do realize most developers only have 1 or 2 good IPs right? The rest of the stuff is worthless crap that should never have seen the light of day.

If anything Blizzard is a model for other companies. While other companies are throwing shovelware at us by...well the shovel full Blizzard is sitting back perfecting their games. They are one of the few developers that seem to follow the quality over quantity theory. I would rather have a dozen good games released every year than the five or six we get now plus the piles of crap. New and different doesn't always mean better. Usually it means its just a polished turd.

 

[Scout Tactical]

I've explained why I think Blizzard should be the one to innovate. They have the stability.

You said that Blizzard is the "the worst thing for the video game industry today". Read your post again, it's at the top. This means that it's worse than Jack Thompson, negative perceptions in the media, Bobby Kotick, shovelware, shifting focus to casual gamers, lack of funds, that school shooter mod [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108695-ModDB-Shuts-Down-School-Shooter-Mod], the effects of global instability, investor-controlled development, and every other game company I listed. Let's assume for a moment that game companies ARE worse for the videogame industry than all those other things I listed, just so you have a chance of being right. You assert that they are the worst because they are "stable"? Why are other stable companies not part of the problem, then?

My art metaphor goes well beyond just pretty graphics, and you missed the point of the Mona Lisa example.

No, I think you misunderstood my reply. The Mona Lisa example shows that people will flock to anything if they know the creator does good work. I pointed out that this is not necessarily a good thing. Who cares if people flock to a new IP, if it's a shitty one?

I never said we should worship SquareEnix, they're part of the problem too

Howso? You assert that making new IPs is a good thing, and Square makes new IPs. They're often bad, but they make a LOT of them. That's innovation! Why shouldn't we worship them by your standards?

NEW SquareEnix IPs since 2006:

Spoiler

Gun Loco
MindJack
Front Mission Evolved
Nier
Blur
Gyromancer
Mini Ninjas
The Last Remnant
Infinite Undiscovery
Project Sylpheed
Singularity
Major Minor's Majestic March
Soul Eater
The 3rd Birthday
Lord of Arcana
Space Invaders Extreme
Odin Sphere
Dawn of Mana

Personally, I'm not a fan, but that's a lot of IPs. Innovation, in your words.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Things with long gestation periods usually die out quickly.

Blizzard seems to be doing fine.

Like I've said though. I have nothing against the polish, but do you think a fourth I.P. would have been too much to ask. You don't have to support every game out the wazoo especially when they're as finely crafted as Blizzard normally does.

No, the support is what makes it polished. It is part of the polishing. It also gives them longevity.

Some one shot regular shooter, an experimental puzzle game. They stick with what they have not because it's all they can do, but because it's safe and makes a lot of money.

That's just silly. I can't even comprehend why you think that makes sense. I doubt anyone there would even enjoy making something like that. Or if they do, they'd make it using the Starcraft editor or something. You want them to make a game that they won't like making, that won't make money... for what reason exactly? Because you have some weird desire to play a blizzard puzzle game?

Before anyone else jumps on me about it. I don't actually think Blizzard should go out of business. I think a house cleanup would do them good. That was my attention getter. It got you to read it, didn't it?

Here's a free tip. If you use attention getters for a thread that are inane and potentially misleading, expect to be called out for it, and expect no real discussion on topics to occur.

I'm not even advocating that they scrap R.T.S., and the like. Just do something different, you're so good at the genre, you have so much talent, but you won't use it for anything really just crazy risky, but potentially worth more intellectually and maybe monetarily than what you, Blizzard, already has. It's not like they can't afford the hit.

As far as I can tell, all you are suggesting is that they do something 'crazy risky' just.... because they can. Is there any value in that for ANYone? Risk isn't something to look for. Quality is something to look for, and they do a good job with that.